wei guo

Ok. So right now you still support dilation happens on time not timer, Yes? Then let us talk about this in detail step by step. Suppose If you only have a sand clock in your hand and regard this is the most accurate timer to measure time, then you put this timer at different positions where the gravity is different, then all the sands in the sand clock at the position which has the higher gravity would fall faster than the other one(or spend less time to go down from the top to the bottom of the inside space of the sand clock than the other one), you admit this is the truth ? Please just simply answer yes or no.

I gave the detail in the thread in page 5. Ok. We just go back that specific question. Have you read the paragraph I quoted in page 5 about the time dilation by comparing two kinds of clock? If not, then you read it now and after that, you tell me that you still support the dilation occurs on time or merely on timer? Just answer this simple question. This question is something quite specific and we can focus on it more and more deeply. I think this question is a good outlet to breakthrough. I think it is better to focus on the specific question. The general discussion cannot wake you up. Just go back that specific question. Have you read the paragraph I quoted in page 5 about the time dilation by comparing two kinds of clock? If not, then you read it now and after that, you tell me that you still support the dilation occurs on time or merely on timer? Just answer this simple question. Very simple. The first one or the second one ? But the operating mechanism behind all phenomena is consistent because all phenomena, either perceived or non-perceived, has the same prototype of reality. Yes. This word "arbitrary" can enhance to express what I mean.

I know you learn physics for many years. That is why you are getting into that abstract frame too much. 'invariant quantities' is the explanation for the explanation, which is a derived product after several logic chaos and have to be put on a mathematical coat. Anything, if only put on a mathematical coat can be explained, must have some logical chaos inside. Otherwise, you just can explain it by using the everyday language which can be easily understood by the people who are generally educated. Reality is just around us in daily life. Do not put on any extra abstract coat on it.

I think you still do not really understand what I say. This is not natural because you make an artificial hypothesis to equal the flow of time with another phenomenon as the timer (no matter the set and rise of the sun, the swing of the pendulum, the fall of sands or electron's transition) . The decision to choose which phenomenon as the timer is determined by observers. For example, there are two groups of species. A group of one species A can observe a phenomenon and they choose this phenomenon as the timer but the group of another species B cannot observe this phenomenon, so they have to choose another phenomenon that can be perceived by them as the timer. So, species A and B use different sort of timer to measure time. This is the artificial decision which has the subjective characteristic. 'artificial' is not limited to the species of human beings but involves all forms of 'observers' who want to understand the instinct of reality. So now, I think I explain this quite clearly and you can understand what I mean in "artificial". This is what science should be. But the development of physics does not follow the rule of Occam's razor. Reality has been added too many things that does not belong to it.

For the scientific paper, the most important thing is how to use the simple words to illustrate the operating mechanism of reality rather than focusing on how to make the format of you paper beautiful. After all, this is not art. Other journal is more kind than arxiv and accept preprint before long-term Double-Blind Peer Review. I just give up on arxiv.

Totally, I apply for arxiv twice. The first time quickly rejected and the second time, I adjust the format to make it look better, then arxiv accept and email me it will announce in the next week. But afterwards, someone from arxiv email me that this paper is rejected because of the reject in the first time and repeating the second submission without making an appeal for the first one. So, I doubt arxiv only check the format of paper but do not judge the content of paper.

Here I just take some examples to talk about the nature of equivalence but do not care about the difference between the vector and scalar. If you think this is a problem, then we just discuss this issue always fixed at the same direction. In this way, it is enough to just discuss scalar.

'speed viewed as a ratio of length and time' is nothing special but merely one method for measuring speed. In nature, it also relies on an artificially-defined equivalence between speed and other different physical properties, which also has the limited application range, just like the equivalence in Newton inertia law of 'F=ma' cannot apply to all phenomena. Sand clock is just a vey rough and slow timer. you can ignore any dilated effect. The equivalence in either 'F=ma' or 'speed=distance (length)÷time' or any other similar equivalence is just one sort of measure method, which has no difference in nature. Treating which of them as definition or not definition does not matter but just a decision in a group of species. What we need to focus on is the common nature behind all of these equivalences. In fact, in the paper I try to use the most basic words that can be understood even by the people who can read general newspaper and avoid to create any new terms, which is consistent with the purpose of this paper that aims to avoid adding extra things into reality for explanation.

Noted with thanks

Thank you as well. I also want to find the exact point why this paper cannot be accepted by the mainstream, even very hard to put on a preprint platform. Because arxiv very quickly reject, I cannot figure out it is rejected by volunteer editors or because I do not focus on the format, layout, graph size or expression method that make a paper not look like a layout-qualified published paper. So I have no choice to put on vixra

It indeed has such the potential to represent so because there is an underlying equivalence between the law of mathematics and the law of nature, but this equivalence is not unconditional.

‘Artificial’ means some relationship is abstractly built or conceived of by observers for cognizing the nature. Time is a physical property. If measuring the degree of a physical property by assuming an equivalence between it and the degree of another physical property or another phenomenon, this relationship is artificially built.

Ok, The feeling of "quite frankly" maybe due to that what we talk about is the underlying principle behind how we express the law of nature. I just quote the paragraph from the paper in the below. Just jump the smaller fonts to read from 'for example' that can more clearly explain the artificial assumption in the time measure method by comparing different sorts of clocks which have the same measuring principle.

Radioactive decay, in nature, is the phenomenon of electron jumping off between two states. The artificial assumption behind measuring time by atomic clock is to artificially assume an equivalence between this phenomenon with the flow of time. Only those measurements that are ultimately expressed by mathematical numbers have underlying artificial assumptions. what we care about is the role played by the mathematical equal sign in expressing the law of nature but not Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic. Expand OK, compare with logic. What does it mean in logic? This is a pure mathematical equation. What we care about is the limited application when putting the mathematical sign between different physical properties. This is why the name of the paper is named as Although this title is long and many journals reject this due to such similar format reason, I do not want to short it. Because this name can sufficiently express what I really want express.

Not too surprised, it's very common to see ppl try to rewrite physics because they disagree or don't understand it. Unfortunately that never works. There is nothing artificial about time dilation but from your statement above you seem to have missed the meaning behind the interval ct. There is nothing artificial about using ct as a measurement. Here what we talk about is time measure. The most precise measurement of time is atom clock or some mechanism similar as that. The consequence of ignoring the artificial assumption in this measurement of time would mistake the timer dilation for the time dilation. General people may be difficult to recognize that 'There is some artificial assumption in the measurement of time', but I think you have some deep insight in physics, why you can say some surface words like 'There is nothing artificial in the measurement of time' Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic.

There is no difference for the understanding of Logic. For example, why we believe an interpretation that the color on some object does not initially born with but formed by the non-absorbed light reflected by the object and then enter into our eyes even though we cannot directly observe such a detailed process by our eyes is due to the fact that we can observe some bouncy ball rebound after it hits the ground in real life. So if this logic is put on the forming process of color, it at least make sense in normal life. This is the bottom-line to create any so-called science theory.

In all such experiments, the measure of time, without exception, relies an artificially-defined equivalence between time and timer. This equivalence, just like the equivalence in 'F=ma', also has the limited application range. The specific measuring behaviour in that experiment or similar experiments makes the measured phenomenon exceeds the application range of time measure method. In the paper, I specially discuss this issue in abstract and also spend a section to discuss it.

The equal sign in GR also has applied limitation, but some mathematical manipulation in it makes it has a relatively larger application range, which makes it seems to hold true for much more phenomena but not all. Besides, time dilation or length contraction is the same type issue of logical chaos, which cannot be treated as the real reflection of reality.

The mathematical equal sign in Newton inertia law does not strictly hold true. As long as outside a certain phenomena range such as 'macro, low-speed, inertia system'( if temporarily regard this is correct range), this mathematical equal sign does not exist. Such a applied limitation is ultimately caused by the instinct flaw in the mathematical equal sign for expressing law of nature.

To some extent, every equal sign in expressing the law of nature has this flaw. For example, the mathematical equal sign in 'F=ma' artificially distort the real causal relationship between force, mass and acceleration by treating them as strictly equal relationship.

what I mean for this flaw does not limited to the precision of value but involve some other aspects, i.e. the relationship for two sides cannot be treated as completely equal, otherwise their real causal relationship would be artificially distorted.

'accurate logic' can be viewed as a more rigorous causal relationship, which is detailed discussed in this paper. Such a 'accurate logic' no longer adopts mathematical equal sign because mathematical equal sign describe law of nature has a flaw that the two sides of mathematical equal sign exactly equal to each other, which does not rigorously hold true in reality.

Strictly speaking, any correct physics theory needs have the accurate logic rather than mathematics because mathematics is just a by-product of logic.

Mathematics is merely a sort of language, which is, in nature, no different from other ways used to describe our world. The advantage of math only lies in fact that the symbolic system behind it is more logic than other forms of expression, i.e, everyday language(English, Chinese) or drawing a picture. In short, mathematics is just a product that fit the frame of logic rather than the opposite. Viewing the identity of mathematics as a unique abstract product which needs to be cut a line from other ways of expressing or describing our world is no different to treat mathematics as a kind of religion.

I want to pick a name to describe what you say as a short one of 'phenomenon determinism'. It is not enough to just be compatible with observational evidence because 'observational evidence' is just phenomenon , which may not reflect the truth of reality. For instance, If half human beings are colour blindness and the other half are not, then different half human beings would alert they perceive the correct phenomenon. This is the problem of 'phenomenon determinism'. It cannot become the basis to serve as the standard of judgement.